Hi all,
I just modified the GitHub Repository to address three reviews I received.
Please see the commit:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting/commit/f11312141e40ce3ef34622e4d66638f95611089a
A couple of hints couldn't be addressed:
Christian Huitema wrote:
Second nit: the privacy consideration rightly point out the
privacy risk of reporting failures. The DMARC bis draft clearly states
that sending the failure reports is optional. To quote, "Experience
has shown, however, that Mail Receivers rightly concerned about
protecting user privacy have either chosen to heavily redact the
information in such reports (which can hinder their usefulness) or
not send them at all." It would be very nice if some form of
this advice was repeated in the introduction.
The last sentences of the Introduction are as follows:
It is important to note that these reports can contain the header fields
or sometimes the entire content of a failed message, which may contain
personally identifiable information (PII). The potential disclosure of PII
should be considered when deciding whether to request failure reports as a
Domain Owner, or what information to include or redact in failure reports
when creating them as a Mail Receiver, or whether to create failure reports
at all; see Section 7.
This seems to already address the point, so I didn't add more.
Tim Wicinski wrote:
Optional editorial suggestions (e.g., acronym expansions or grammar fixes).
- **Example**:
> *Abstract*: Expand "NFV" on first use.
> Section 3.1: "it’s" -> "its".*
I didn't find these.
Shall I post -21 as is?
Thanks everybody.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
